breaking booksMany years ago I was rummaging through an as-is collection of used books in very poor condition at my absolute favourite used bookstore in London, Attic Books, and I came upon a small volume, The Vision of Columbus: A Poem in Nine Books by Joel Barlow, esq., second edition, 1787. Now, unless you are very keen on the Hartford wits - as they were called - and this rather ostentatious paean to the discovery of America (never mind the mistreatment of the First Nations), then perhaps you would thrill to its contents, replete with a dedication "To His Most Christian Majesty, Louis the Sixteenth, King of France and Navarre." (Yes, the same king who would be hauled kicking and screaming to the guillotine six years later). Laudatory dedications to the French King was the politic thing to do given France's help to the US in the Revolutionary War.
The book's contents are not the interesting part, nor is the author who I'm told went on to write a bigger book called The Columbiad (and I just can’t help being reminded of John Barth’s hilarious book, The Sot-Weed Factor about a foolish scion of the 1600s sent to Maryland to become its first poet laureate by writing the Marylandiad). What is interesting (to an intractable bibliophile like me), however, was what I discovered when inspecting the inside cover at the back of the book. |
At this time, it was fairly common practice among publishers in the bookbinding craft to reuse what are called "off-strikes": printed pages that have some sort of flaw or whatever waste paper was ready to hand. These were used as padding between the endpaper or pastedown and the cover boards. Generally, a stock of loose leaf off-strikes would be on hand for this purpose. The process of removing the pastedown of a book was briefly featured in a scene in my novel, The Infinite Library, and that was inspired by this real life event. However, what I had started years ago I had not restarted until just recently.
Out of curiosity, and my knowledge that this practice of reusing waste paper off-strikes was common, I chipped a tiny bit of the pastedown to discover a word underneath. Keep in mind that the pastedown is glued to the concealed leaf, and has had over two centuries of being kept firmly pressed together - and so uncovering the hidden leaf is not going to be quick or easy without ruining that page forever with but one careless move.
So, with magnifying glass, compass point, and a very modest application of moisture, I went about the slow process of removing the pastedown from the off-strike leaf- or at least just enough that I could identify what book it may have come from. Complicating this process further was the fact that there was already a bit of damage to the boards that meant there were small sections I would never be able to retrieve. Here is what my initial attempt looks like.
Out of curiosity, and my knowledge that this practice of reusing waste paper off-strikes was common, I chipped a tiny bit of the pastedown to discover a word underneath. Keep in mind that the pastedown is glued to the concealed leaf, and has had over two centuries of being kept firmly pressed together - and so uncovering the hidden leaf is not going to be quick or easy without ruining that page forever with but one careless move.
So, with magnifying glass, compass point, and a very modest application of moisture, I went about the slow process of removing the pastedown from the off-strike leaf- or at least just enough that I could identify what book it may have come from. Complicating this process further was the fact that there was already a bit of damage to the boards that meant there were small sections I would never be able to retrieve. Here is what my initial attempt looks like.
After having gone through this slow process of removing the paste-down, I was able to reveal the printed page that has been hidden for over 220 years. This was the result:
TRANSCRIPTION:
NORWICH, Nov. 8 ??? a letter from a Gentleman at East ??? his Friend in the City, dated October ? 1787, I shall now attempt a narrative of one mo??? extraordinary acts of suicide which happ ???age -– –– Two miles below lives a ? a of Hills, the father died six years since, and l large landed interest to be divided amongst his wi [+dow or +ife] three sons and two da[ught]ers --- the eldest sons Daniel and Joseph [were] bachelors when the fa [+ther] di[ed]; they lived at home with their mother we?? on in a very steady, honest, still manner joined hand in hand in cultivating their farm, r ??? and hogs in great ??? as well as other ???, which in the fall of every year, turned into which they deposited ??? their chests; having very little experience out, [a]s they ??? cloaths of ? own manufactury, and were seldom farther from b than their farm---they were ever ???led the rich honest bachelors. Th? money they would let o? interest and never ?? for it till the borrower ready to pay----They ??? received a very good [+edu-] cation and were particularly steady and upright--- they lived in peace and prosperity, till an unha [+ppy] thought entered their minds. They engaged th [+em-] selves last fall and winter in procuring material they ??? Mr. Samuel Wells of Glast[enbur]y partner who agreed to build half of ??? --- they her on the stocks and went on in building of till she was launched and rigged complete, she pro ??? [res]ponsive than they expected, ??? owed no a shilling, when sh? ??? finished---Nathaniel ever begun to ex??? the uneasiness ???ful he should see his r??? [a]gain, and |
This is evidently a letter, possibly from a collection of letters. There is the initially dramatic mention of suicide, and then a description of a family whose father had passed away six years ago, the father’s estate divided up between his wife, their two sons and three daughters. The two eldest sons (Daniel and Joseph) become the central subjects of the letter. They are described in positive terms. It becomes clear that they are fairly wealthy, possibly on account of the inheritance they gained from their father, and that they maintain a prosperous farm. There is the suggestion that they also run a clothing business, and that they are generous in lending money without calling the debt before the borrower was able to pay. We also learn that the two sons were well educated and morally well-adjusted persons - that is until “an unhappy thought entered their minds.” How ominous! The remainder of the text, on account of the damage, is quite patchy. What I can surmise is that they might have entered into a speculative shipping venture with a Mr Samuel Wells (see below). Things were going smoothly for a time until maybe something went awry. Enter Nathaniel - whoever he is - who is uneasy about something, most likely in relation to the ship, or whatever “r” is.
CLUES
The Printer
It is possible that the off-strike relates to another book bound and printed by Hudson and Goodwin. During this time, most authors were self-published and thus self-financed the printing of their work. The story behind Hudson and Goodwin I can draw from Isaiah Thomas’ A History of Printing in America, published in 1810. The first printer in Hartford, Connecticut was Thomas Green in 1764 who learned the art of printing from his father, Samuel Green. At that time, the press was involved in the publishing of a newspaper, the third in Connecticut. In 1767, Green moves to Newhaven, Conn, and leaves the Hartford press to his partner, Ebeneezer Watson in the newly named printing firm, Green and Watson. By 1769, Watson who was continuing to publish the newspaper (The Connecticut Courant), became sole proprietor, but died in 1777 at the young age of 33. Watson’s widow continued the business with a partner by the name of George Goodwin, and she herself remarried to a fellow named B. Hudson. Whereas Goodwin apprenticed to Watson, Hudson was not trained as a printer, and can be said to have married into the business. They formed the firm Hudson and Goodwin.
The Town of Norwich
Norwich: given the printing activity in Connecticut at this time, it is highly likely that the mention of Norwich in the text refers to Norwich, Connecticut.
Samuel Well(e)s
Mention of Samuel Wells [sic] of Glastenbury, [Connecticut; and also spelled “Glastonbury”] most likely refers to either Samuel Welles who was a captain and died on August 28, 1731. at 72 years of age, while his widow, Ruth Welles lived to be 83, dying on March 30, 1742. Or, to his son, Samuel Welles, b. 1689 and d. May 20, 1770. Samuel “Jr” was ordained a minister of Lebanon on Dec 5, 1710, dismissed Dec 4, 1722, and left to live in Boston. One of the descendants of this line, Gideon Welles, was US Secretary of the Navy, 1861-9, born in Glastonbury, Conn. But wait: there is another Capt. Samuel Welles of the English navy who died in 1675 in Wethersfield, Conn. where he had “purchased” some land:
CLUES
The Printer
It is possible that the off-strike relates to another book bound and printed by Hudson and Goodwin. During this time, most authors were self-published and thus self-financed the printing of their work. The story behind Hudson and Goodwin I can draw from Isaiah Thomas’ A History of Printing in America, published in 1810. The first printer in Hartford, Connecticut was Thomas Green in 1764 who learned the art of printing from his father, Samuel Green. At that time, the press was involved in the publishing of a newspaper, the third in Connecticut. In 1767, Green moves to Newhaven, Conn, and leaves the Hartford press to his partner, Ebeneezer Watson in the newly named printing firm, Green and Watson. By 1769, Watson who was continuing to publish the newspaper (The Connecticut Courant), became sole proprietor, but died in 1777 at the young age of 33. Watson’s widow continued the business with a partner by the name of George Goodwin, and she herself remarried to a fellow named B. Hudson. Whereas Goodwin apprenticed to Watson, Hudson was not trained as a printer, and can be said to have married into the business. They formed the firm Hudson and Goodwin.
The Town of Norwich
Norwich: given the printing activity in Connecticut at this time, it is highly likely that the mention of Norwich in the text refers to Norwich, Connecticut.
Samuel Well(e)s
Mention of Samuel Wells [sic] of Glastenbury, [Connecticut; and also spelled “Glastonbury”] most likely refers to either Samuel Welles who was a captain and died on August 28, 1731. at 72 years of age, while his widow, Ruth Welles lived to be 83, dying on March 30, 1742. Or, to his son, Samuel Welles, b. 1689 and d. May 20, 1770. Samuel “Jr” was ordained a minister of Lebanon on Dec 5, 1710, dismissed Dec 4, 1722, and left to live in Boston. One of the descendants of this line, Gideon Welles, was US Secretary of the Navy, 1861-9, born in Glastonbury, Conn. But wait: there is another Capt. Samuel Welles of the English navy who died in 1675 in Wethersfield, Conn. where he had “purchased” some land:
"The town we now know as Glastonbury [CT] had its beginnings in 1636, when the Wethersfield proprietors bought from the sachem. Sowheag. a large tract of land measuring six miles west of the river, three miles east, and six miles from the north to south. No record of an Indian deed to the tract, which of course included Glastonbury, the "three miles east", have been found, but apparently there was an agreement indicating that some sort of payment had been made, for 65 years later, in 1671, certain Wethersfield and Glastonbury men paid several Indian Leaders 12 yards of "trading cloth" to sign, with their marks, a confirmatory deed to the original sale. This was recorded in the Wethersfield land records and reads, in part, as follows: (P) "..... and six milles in length by the Riuer side on the east side of the said Conecticot Riuer, from Pewter Pott brooke, borth, to the Bounds betwene Weathersfield and Middletowne, south; the said Great Riuer west, the wholle leanth to runn three large milles into the wilderness east; the which lands, as afore said, hath been quietly possessed by the English now for severall yeeres past; but, in as much as there is noe written deed found under the hand of the said Sowheag, which may be an ocasion of trouble hereafter, for the preuention of which, knowing what our predeceassers haue don, and what hee had receiued for the same; and for the consideration of twelue yards of trading cloth, giuen to us a gratuity, by Capt. Samuel Wyllys, Mr. Henry Wollcot, Mr. James Richards, Capt. Samuell Welles, Mr. Samuel Tallcot, Mr. John Chester, Mr. James Treat, in the name and behalfe, and for the use of all others, the rest of the seuerall proprietors of the said land with in the limites of the Towneship of Weathersfield, aforesaid: We, Turramugus, Sepannamaw Squaw, daughter to Sowheage; Speunno, Nabowhee, Weesumshie, Waphanck; true heirs of and rightful sucksessers to the aforesaid Sowheage --- hath fully confirmed, and doe by these presents fully and absolutely confirme the aforesaid grant made by our predeseasser, Sowheage, afore menssioned, enfeeoffed, sett ouer and confirmed ..... To haue and to hold all the aforesaid tract of lands, as they are bounded, with all the meaddowes, pastere, woods, under-woods, mines, mineralls, stones, qurrys, profits, comoditys, priulidges and appertinances, whatsoeuer, that are or may bee to the same belonging." (Marjorie Grant McNulty, Glastonbury: From Settlement to Suburb, Glastonbury CT: The Woman's Club of Glastonbury, 1970, pp 9-10).
Now, it would be tempting to assume that the Samuel Wells referenced in the text is the same as (at least one of the) naval captains of the same name because of a reference to a ship, but it is also just as reasonable to assume that another Samuel Wells may have had interests in ships, too, so this link is tenuous at best.
Google Can’t Help Us
Excerpting sentences for explicit search (using quotation marks) does not reveal any results. OpenLibrary does not seem to have the digitized record, either. This leads us to a few possible scenarios: 1. The book from which this page was taken has yet to be digitized; 2. The book from which this page was taken was printed in a too small print run for which there may be no editions extant; 3. The book from which this page was taken was abandoned at some stage of the printing process for whatever reasons.
THE INSIDE FRONT COVER
If I can’t resolve the mystery of the page that has been revealed beneath the paste-down on the inside back cover, why not make a run at uncovering what is beneath the inside front cover. This is the initial state after I discovered that there was another mis-strike.
Google Can’t Help Us
Excerpting sentences for explicit search (using quotation marks) does not reveal any results. OpenLibrary does not seem to have the digitized record, either. This leads us to a few possible scenarios: 1. The book from which this page was taken has yet to be digitized; 2. The book from which this page was taken was printed in a too small print run for which there may be no editions extant; 3. The book from which this page was taken was abandoned at some stage of the printing process for whatever reasons.
THE INSIDE FRONT COVER
If I can’t resolve the mystery of the page that has been revealed beneath the paste-down on the inside back cover, why not make a run at uncovering what is beneath the inside front cover. This is the initial state after I discovered that there was another mis-strike.
I do feel a bit guilty in removing the history of ownership inscribed here, but at least I have a photograph. So begins the painstaking procedure of peeling back the pastedown. This has to be done with very special care and a steady hand. I daub just the right amount of water so that it only saturates the pastedown, let it set for about five to seven seconds, and then apply the compass point, being very careful not to press too deeply (one micrometre is enough to puncture the actual text, or to rip off both the pastedown and the page underneath). Peel back very slowly since a fast pulling of a flap of pastedown will either end up tearing the page underneath, or it will only remove a thin layer of pastedown while leaving a fuzzy layer obscuring the text, which is even trickier to remove without causing damage.
The good news is, once I had the lower half done, the text was completely readable:
The good news is, once I had the lower half done, the text was completely readable:
TRANSCRIPTION
CHARLESTON, November 8. Extract of a letter from Augusta, dated October 26 “We lately find ourselves in a very disagreeable situation, not from any danger we apprehend from the Indians at this place, but from the prospect of a war being entered into by the executive, under the form of the then militia law–––when the person and property of each inhabitant would have been at the disposal of every militia officer. Our fears are now greatly relieved by the meeting of the legislature: who are passing laws for carrying on the war with vi- gor––the expence to fall as equally as possible on the inhabitants. “There is an act passed to raise 3000 men, to be enlisted in any of the states: They are to have for their services each a bounty of 640 acres of land, being one mile square; and are to be supplied by a specific tax of 6/3 per cent. on all taxable property. There is also an impress act, under certain restricti- ons, to take place only in case of great emergency.” |
Even if I cannot discover from which book this is drawn from, it is potentially an interesting piece of revolutionary period Americana. Sadly, I can't find a year to go with the date. Is this page drawn from the same book as the page on the inside back cover? Possibly. If so, that adds a bit of credibility to the hypothesis that these pages are a collection of letters. But I want a bit more precision on the date to which the contents of the letter refer. From a survey of archival US congress data, I did find the 1785 Land Ordinance Act which distributed lots of 640 acres (one square mile) at a cost of $1 per acre. The Act was designed to ease a lot of boundary conflicts in the parceling of land, and it was not really intended to encourage settlement, but as a way for the government to generate revenue. But which war is the writer referring to? The Revolutionary War against Britain was over by 1783, and the only brewing war at this time is one in the northwest territory (in modern day Ohio and Michigan) with First Nations. Given the publication date of the book itself and the date of the Land Ordinance, I would wager that this page prints a letter that must have been written between 1785 and 1787. The publication of the letter in a book would also have to fall within this period, with the book being subsequent to the initial letter.
Attempts to discover what book this orphaned page may have come from have resulted in the same failure as when I went sleuthing to discern the origin of the page hidden in the back inside cover. I cannot find a record for it despite having a whole chunk of text to search with. I will give it another go by inspecting the digitized records of books printed by Hudson and Goodwin (which is not easy given that they are scattered). I've certainly come to the end of Google's usefulness in this regard (in fact, I've been noticing that Google is getting a lot worse, serving up ever more irrelevant, commercial, and pop culture content in its search results). It would probably take a physical visit to an archive in the US.
*Update: I made an inquiry of a colleague who is fairly knowledgeable in US history, and he couldn't place the text. Although there was some historical moment where Charleston refused to commit men for war, this text is not indexed on that event.
Clues
1. There is mention of an ongoing war.
2. The brief mention of "Indians" and the possibility of danger might be in reference to the Northwest (or Turtle's) War as the "belligerent" are First Nations. As we do not know if the letter is being received in or sent from Charleston, we lack the data to determine the precise location of the correspondent.
3. We have some major clues by way of government acts, substantiated further by numbers (640 acres, 3000 men, and 6/3 percent) which might help narrow down the date via a search through congressional records of passed legislation. We do know that the Northwest War that lasted from 1785-1795 had a total force of 4,000 US fighters, 1,200 or so of whom died in combat. Bounties were also generally given as an incentive for voluntary service, and prior to the '85 Land Ordinance, parcels of land were given or sold off at discount at 500 down to 100 acre lots, pending military rank.
4. And mention of an "impress act", which would have been a kind of conscription method to "press" men of fighting age into service. So far, I haven't found any legislation post-1783 that passes any such and Act.
Attempts to discover what book this orphaned page may have come from have resulted in the same failure as when I went sleuthing to discern the origin of the page hidden in the back inside cover. I cannot find a record for it despite having a whole chunk of text to search with. I will give it another go by inspecting the digitized records of books printed by Hudson and Goodwin (which is not easy given that they are scattered). I've certainly come to the end of Google's usefulness in this regard (in fact, I've been noticing that Google is getting a lot worse, serving up ever more irrelevant, commercial, and pop culture content in its search results). It would probably take a physical visit to an archive in the US.
*Update: I made an inquiry of a colleague who is fairly knowledgeable in US history, and he couldn't place the text. Although there was some historical moment where Charleston refused to commit men for war, this text is not indexed on that event.
Clues
1. There is mention of an ongoing war.
2. The brief mention of "Indians" and the possibility of danger might be in reference to the Northwest (or Turtle's) War as the "belligerent" are First Nations. As we do not know if the letter is being received in or sent from Charleston, we lack the data to determine the precise location of the correspondent.
3. We have some major clues by way of government acts, substantiated further by numbers (640 acres, 3000 men, and 6/3 percent) which might help narrow down the date via a search through congressional records of passed legislation. We do know that the Northwest War that lasted from 1785-1795 had a total force of 4,000 US fighters, 1,200 or so of whom died in combat. Bounties were also generally given as an incentive for voluntary service, and prior to the '85 Land Ordinance, parcels of land were given or sold off at discount at 500 down to 100 acre lots, pending military rank.
4. And mention of an "impress act", which would have been a kind of conscription method to "press" men of fighting age into service. So far, I haven't found any legislation post-1783 that passes any such and Act.